HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/28/1978potaillu'ml flaanut. u(IMMISSIR
N B
SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 28.; 1978
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
The. Plani a .
n� ug Commission encourages, applicants_ or their representative to be
avilabli� beadeferrd1'toha meeti
hat•`to agenda items need
pert information.
PLEDGE° ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL` : Comm Balshaw Head Horciza Lavin
Shearer- Waite
STAFF: i ; Ronald F .:Hall.; , Planning,..Director... .
HTLLCREST,HOSPITAL/ Site _Des 'g Revi' ew- consideration of proposed
LANDSCAPING - IRRIGATION Hosp%tal-LandseAping-and Irrigation Plan located
PLAN: on °,McDowell Blvd,
AMENDMENT IT.O ZONING 1. P.ub`l'ic, Hearin g . : to... evaluation' the. - Environmental
ORDINANCE,' „107.2 N.- C,:.S. _ Impact --..Questionnaire --for' Amendment, to Zoning
DEDI'CAT,ION: OF .STREET Ordinance .10,72 N ". C.. S_. -: .
RIGHT' =OF- .WAY,: 2. Public.Hearing.to
. consider an "amendment to
Section 405:5 -of the-=Zonng Ordinance to
provide for.dedcaton °,of._necessary street .
j righti -=way • as a-- condition' of Site Design
Review,.
i --
QANTAS .DEVELOPMENT:: CORP; ,- - 1. P l c.- Hearing_ to ;,evaluq�t�e_ a. proposed. rezoning
PHASE' II- REZONING. - FROM' ._ of the - p,roperty. - lo cat ed_�orr.N.orth_::McDowe11 Blvd..
PCD - TO =PUD /TENTATIVE' next. to ::fhe- :.prop'osed hospital site from PCD:
SUBDIVISTON MAP:. to PUD (Planned'tn t District)
(c'ontinu'e(f).:'.
2 Tentative - Subdivision Mag',.
'P
•
6
PETALUM'A PLANNING 'COMMISSION,:' F
SPECIAt'•.MEET -ING " ' { ' EBRUARY 28, 1'
78
,.�, . - , , . , - 7:30
CITY COUNCIL• °CHAMBERS; CITY :HALL " PETALUMA, "CALIFORNIA
PRESENT; - ' Comm. H_ead,;Horc za, Shearer, Waite
ABSENT'. Comm. Balshaw, Lavin•
STAFF Ronald F Hall P-l'anning Director.
HILLCREST HOSPITAL/ Mr. Hall explained the request by Hillcresi'HospitaT
LANDSCAPING' -. to,review.the. preliminary landscape -plan for the
IRRIGATION PLANS:: proposed hospital to be' l'ocated •on'North McDowell
Blvd. Condition 4 of Site Design a royal required by
PP ,
1977 reads: the Planning Commission at their meeting;on.April 19,
.: Landscape plans indicating the proposed' treatment - of the entire
site lnonuforgreviewrandta�nrovalem ,, shall: be submit "ted
Commiss to the, Planning
pp prior to the- issuance of a building permit:.
The hosp district g; requesting;tha;t final landscape and irrigation plan
submittal be•deferred to -a 'later time.. The. ,primary concerns are that final.
plans are submitted with the propose d,.desigri qua °l ty and that substantial
lanscape improvements be.comp`leted prior to 'the opening of., the hospital. Mr.
P all indicated the City- Attorn ,'a atp on plan ey commented that anpri ate'bond should be
a
osted to insure .that the final landscape and it � an would -be carried
Casey Kawamoto,;Landscape Architee_t,, •explained the various landscape'-areas for
the hbsp'ital: One; area .`ids for doctors ;parking.; At the main entrance there
will be;'an "L'' shaped trellise with vines Seats are located at various
loc'afi ou
. oris'thrghout the grounds., There would be" a °bus stop, and a "ramp for
the:'handicapped Due to 'the 'flatness of the "land' the overall landscape
i
scheme is in the,'mounding ihere would "be'seating near the intensive care
unit and an- .'arbor to the,.- high power plant give it a lift. The
that arebui -lt into. the-raised wall to- enhance the building Comm.., Hore
landsca in would include berm � ' raised seating and moundin and also seat
za
asked ;iE,,, there - would • be flower ; b'eds which are colorful ands `add- to the -beauty
of :a p1a'ee'. ":Mr kawamoto stated there'are several areas where annuals and.
perennials can be „planted,' 'The intent 1 • s to keep + - down, . is
the, ;secret of good- looking natural
grounds. Comm 'Shearer noted there`•will
g in, the area that were originally in Phase'., II - and those •area's would no't •
be heavily, aarf(Iscap.ed
Comm Horciza .asked 'i -f he trees and shrubs,. ;selected are' those that `do :noa'
require heavy water -ing, as this tends t'o be a maintenance problem Mr
K'awamoto exp'lalned 'that most .'of the landscaping would be low - maintenance -faith
some variatiow of,. color` so it `will not be too., b'l'and looking'. Deciduous mate
riaY would be, held ' to 'the perimeter where there, "will =riot be a great' deal of
maintenance The inanic.ured 5 'areas; - the 'entry, and 'around ° the -hospital would `.be
Petaluma City Planning 'Commiss on : - Minutes, -February 2.8, 1918.
HILLCREST HOSPITAL / where the, mos,t. careful tme` water rig should. be done:-
LANDSCAPING-. Comm. Horciza stated that. Irrigation hias been,..a prob=
IRRIGATION PLANS'. lem; especially _during the drought'years;and it , Would-,
(Continued)':: ' be good ii -the. hospital .did .not hake to, use tons, of
water to - ; maint_ain the landscaping,. Mr. Kawamot'o
explained ,that it.was,.a requirement they irrigation
system be aiitomatic,.°the initial cost is. higher than a.manual system, but-
maintenance, wo=uld' be 1 the ewater savings, would .also •be an advantage
Automatic wa`ter-ing can,'be.controlled to say 5= minutes as opposed to ..someone
who has , to ,open a manual valve, and' n for,gets to turn . it off . . The. drip system,
cost wise; come s. out about ,even:; Iri the proximity of the hosp•itai, there : " has
to be,. -a - - good. irrigati=on system for the grass; 'trees and shrubs.. The planting;
and irrigation sys! ;has to go hand in `Nand..,
Mr. Charles Cowen; administrator of the hospital, stated they intend to
do ever :yth±ng poss;i -ble to make the ho,pital' attractive, and asked' that no
additional costs,, such as the propo,sed'bond.1for landscaping be requir=ed,:
Comm. Head moved to approve the site ,design for ,the proposed, hospital with:
'conditions o. ap - valias•re.commended the staff and modified by -:the Arc'hi-
teatur;al & Site Design Review Committee with the following' change T = .
mo = tion was secorided by Comm..,' Horc za. 'The,motion carried unanimously:
Condition 'changed: All landscaping, (plant material, :berm "s, walkways;
walls steps, seats, arbor=s" trellises, bollards, etc.)
and, irrigation facilities indicated within the - bound-
Aries' specified as Phase I on Exhibit; ,A ;shall be
completed in total , pri.or ,to , occupancy.. All trees, ; and .
ear th.berms indicated within ; the boundaries of Phas'e' ..i
(a.) shall. be 'completed, pt or- to occupancy ;All land -.
scapirig (.as defined above.) and irrigation fac=ilities
shall ,be,. compl eted • in total •'for, the' entire site, within*
two {2) : years: ; ,of, the granting of a' cent- fic'ate ,of'
occupancy.. Any mod if 'cat 'what euer Ito this schedule
shall, be :,subject to approval- by the Planning ,Commi_sslon.
AMENDMENT T0. 'ZONING Mr,. Hall explained the.reques`t fo,r a Zoning :Ordinance
QRDINANCE 1072 NCS =- •Amendment ;to provide for :right -of =way dedication and
DEDICATION OF '.STREET,.' str-;eet improvements -of developments subj=ect to site =
RIGHT -OF -WAY: -des ign ;review:. Where a proposed' development proj.ect._
is located on an unimproved ;street or•road,_ There.
•presently no,unif'orm,.way of requiring the ,developer to
dedicate that street, frontage- to, the unless the development inva ve's a
subdivision. A, developmentN :project.,such.as a commercial building on.a large•.
p g c' t'e' the :necessary .s.treet, ,frontage
lot, can ; be deelo "ed •without, havin to. ded'ica
as,a condition of.- development approval. There is no City ordinance•requiring
improvement of that." tr.eet :frontage Reso;luti.on•,No. 5430 N 'G.,&. was passed by
ah'e: City Council • requi.r - . ng , , public improvements n. all areas of ;the A City, both
_ _
Old or new:, when the' improvements cost $2,;000 or more. However-:, 'this policy
Petaluma- City - Pla . nn ng Commis Minutes, • l'ebruary`
�.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING does not ,have• the weight of law arid cannot .be.'im
ORDINANCE 1072 14 S- mented in -the same ,manner as .a City_,ordinance Lt
DEDICATION'.O,F STREET • further requires improvements to :b'e: made, . does not
RIGHT OF -WAY` ' provide for dedication. The owner: continues.
.
(Continued)'': to pay, taxes "on the street right of: -way and: maintain
it, which W'ogld•be. the City's responsibility if it
were dedicated.
.Two draft amendments to the, Zoning Ordinane Were prepared: Draft,I provides
for dedication of necessary street :righ't of- way as a condition of S te.Design
Review I Draft II provides for dedication of necessart right -of- way -as
f_ y , stree
_
a- condition of development approval;.
The Publ .
is j Hearing: was opened to consider. the Environmental Impact Question_,
naire_ lNo comments, -wer.e offered from the audience and the-Public Hearing was
clo.sed.;;
Comm. H -rciza moved to direct the Planning Dire ctor,t-o and post a
` Negative.Declaration,for the proj!ect.- The :motion wa_s.'seconded by Comm. Shearer.
AYES 3 NOES _l; ABSENT• 2
The Public Hearing to consider an-amendment to the .•Zoning:Ordinance.
Comm Waite asked, how • 1
• _ ,. ". p,, .an lines were established,. Thomas. %Ha -r.gs, Assistant
City Engineer,, explained the. Engineering Department•c'an provide information to
an applicant on how•much street dedication will be requ_ired., The'Cit.y, has
geometric s- tandard's; established for the var ious ;streets. For any existing
street Aihat is not impxove& we know what the right -of =way will: be. Ther -e are
two `• street, systems• that have .plan ..1•ines established - -E;.. Washington .between
s r: Iii aii
Liberty., tIs t P This u is determined Liberty, and
on what- the
futur-e•.street .need's are in this section of'- •town. and, the. geometries to be
consideed in that are
+ r`` a, Under the present policy, the City cannot require a
dedication but can require that a ,building be- •set.back. If the property is
split Ahto two, pieces, the City can ,a, ded- ca;tion., -.I•f such a dedica- .
tion had` been in effect.- when. Wash ng, qn• was. to be •constructed, the City
would not .. have to, pay ,f n -
or. dedication,
Harglis further, .explained- -the. Resolution, No 5,4;30 N. Q. S: establishes the
requirements, ,for the -which ificlude. curb:s,;:
gut €ers�, � sidewalks;, street• pavement, includ ng sulibase, and' baser,o at:orm,
inst,alled:; When a building permit is issued : o:ver , $2,000,; t p City
drains, sani.tar sewer and water mains The Cit;:re ures that these im ro
ments be he Cit
requires: that -the, public improuemen,ts in f,rgmt, of "-that, property be installed..
In some areas..where,peop . ar:e :builds- ng•.on vacant. o'ts,, and also in the Cher-r.
Valley ar.ea, the• . City does require 1/,'2• street improvements across, these prop-
• erties Res 5430. was passed. ;. in .1 and with the.inflation the $2,0:00 figure.
has•.go,tten out of date an inflationary• clause of ,say $5 ^ wouldrbe
written •iiito the ordinance.;; The preserit� policy. requires- the construction. of.
public improvements whenever the:.proposed.aordinance wou.ld.provde °for street
"
• li -3-
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minut:es,'. F&-bruaryy,2 &,.,19
AMENDMENT TO: ZONING d edication: Comm: - Head' , ifoted -tha-t J. t built'd patio
QRDINANCi 1072 NCS or.-room addition that. cost $2 000 'fie
would -be requ-iYed,
DEDICATION ,'OF'STREET. tbi,put improvements,- and , 'provide ,'str'ed-"
RIGHT,77OF7WAY.. � dedlcation'. could "be costly to the small' Hom
e.
(Continued):, Owner .w ho wants ts to 11 d m , pr I ov I e his Property:. It -seems
-,that.-we hav6' 'laws that re . strict us. . from what we,
can do.
Comm, , :, commented that in the case of '-Magnolia Avenue -and * Liberty' up,. to
West Sfxeet.,, we have- the bounddk-y lines for .,the- widening of the street.' ' "But
say there is 6 - ft�l of street .,and the � owner 1
only, one that is going: - to de_dfga,t:.e andthe. ° C ity �decidds ,. to the street,
the City will -acquire the other property on the street by m
eminent domain and
pdy a air ta:kket value f or. the - property.. Is this not urifalt to thfg one-
person b - even 'though - he has: dedicated that land., he' is still respon-
sible, in an assessment dist r.',e front of `hid
air that piece of road in
property., Th is iiJan�adVantage to the , City , , , but to the property owner in 7thie�
City dt, i tea - Il-y* a hinderance., s
I When owner wants develop a 10t 1 i I he
has clear. title. to the lot, he will -put a mortgage. on the I.o-,t in ord er to - b,
. 'mortgage - I 4� . , e,
able to build on it,.; When he . puts a 'mortgag on it,-. it will' b.& the lot, in its
entirety, in Riding the part •he will dedicate. SoTif he! has a mortgage on it,.
.how J-_ he� d6d:i hing-wheii the bank.has title? Mr. Hargis explained
qqn cate. anyt
that if,,_ omeone.with an existing l6t. on-Magnolia Avenue -wants to de'v"elo p 'their
property'with $2,,000 worth of the City cannot require dedicationj
even though : ther& are plan lines`.-, The, City can r,6q,uire. the builder- to :set t he
building back f rom - the f uture property lihe to honor the setbacks,. 'But, - if
that 'same.; - plit the City` 'property owner were t b s - his property into two '
. I I I' . t pieces
could r-,eq.uir6 the, dbdication` ; i.e. if you-subdivide - you , ihave, to d'e'd1c y our
property, and if -You dbn'.t,;subdivide -arid.' develo your property, , you ty do n't hay.,e
to: -dedicate.. . This ordin'ancel. woul I I p ut' e' the - ' basis whether
everyone on same S
they are, • or develop t h ey wou ld'. &t, to dedicate: the
proper Comm. waiter- stated that if you are' not .1subdividing,, you -are 'not
creating any.,more, parcels, so you, are, 'not cxe&ting• any more 'burden on �the
0
street systemi.-
Comm. i_ asked how, many &treets and how. -much `f.:;th6 area physically is there
in the
where - property -� ,t- of ,"the street tt owners are paying taxe s .o the�' center'
City? Mr '. Hargis explained that the east -"s_ id: of' Ret "eas of the f reeway,,
•
is almost all s :so ;there: ib' no ',property on that side-, the question
if ih w h is - h In" Cherry' Valley area, there are e -5 1 P mu on. the , we t.
t4dwV own -t the •.center of the s, I treet-.. In the area out towards the Condiott-i
development. there, dr& some' properties that own to th`e'- of the stre!'e't
The ..,Qity., acquix�,ed the property- to the. center of the. street on the; "I" and:"
Olive P oj,ec,t.-. Comm; Head asked if these property owne'r's co,u_ld•ded this
prope-riy-.t6 the City and relieve =thems of liability, rand 'ft&m'the tax,
01i
Comm;. Wafte, site desi
not- reauired t d amily
res:idenc�e'.,_• Hkrgis� s tat ed, iiWe still tequ-It. the public, , impxovements 'Under
thia. Mr ,Hall, explained -that instead of policy,, the . Yesolutloiy
would be an- Ordinance , Mr. .-Adkg1s, sta,ted• the -only chdnge, are making, is-'
,4-
Petaluma ,City Planning;•,Commissi`ori Minutes,, February.'28, 1978
AMENDMENT, TO 'ZONING_: you are requirng ion.: The policy resolution.
ORDINANCE 10 NCS st l`1 stands+ as far as•t6quit ng public 'improvements..
DEDICATION • OF STREET .. The' only .fehange would be ; making it; an or'dinarce that
RIGHT -�OF =WAY ': would require ded eaflon;,along with tHe.,•publ c improve-
(Continued) _ ments•: • Comm.,Head stated th'e' - shod ld.-
f have the, ;option of ; whether - he wants' •to _ d'ed.cate 'tle'
right of -way, ;this ahould no,t ,be,- mandatory Comm.
Horciza ,.st'ated the $2,;000 f :gur.e `bothered him If we run, into a. more rapid
inf lation, I. we would have to',,.up:d4-t r; Zoning Ordinance neach year to bring
these .numbers in- line..;,. If there .were any, , r -- ,te a or .way `to. describe
the typ ,q imgtr ement'., 't would be bet t than expressed ,innumliers.
Comm Head; moved to continue' the :public hea_r_- ing.on the'proposed Amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to the ,mee ng of - April 4, 1978., and °that the proposals
.be sent',b`ack to the staff for 'r,ewriting; to be.more.'clearly defined. so 'that
the ord nance, when it is written, will be of more fairness to the•proIperty
owner.,,The;,mo.tion was; seconded by Comm. Horciza. The motion carried unan=
imo us ly;,
QAN.TAS�`DEVELOPM'ENT' Mr. Hall explained the requedIV by Jon Joslyn to rezone
CORP- PHASE.I1 property located on. North;McDowell Planned
REZONING.FROM.PCD. Community. District to Plarined Unit Devdidpi and
TO PUDI /,•TENTATIVE review- of the. _Tentative Subdivision.. Map;: • The> deveT-
SUBDIVISION MAP: oper'proposes -to develop 95 parcels consisting of 52
('Qontinued.) single- :family ':1ots. 28, qua'driplot lots;' 1.2 'townhouse
,;. lots,, a 4.5 acre par -k,, a" 2,:50Q' s'q`uare .foo't well site
and 'the- remaining undeveloped portion of land!.
Hall stated •'the L. townhouses will be interspersed throiig'hout Phase II. They
are identifiable , ;because of ,the .,size of the ..lot..,. but should also b`e' desig'na'ted
spe ,`tally. on the ma'p: Jon Joslyn, Qaritas; D'evelopment:'Corp._ "explained the
1'ow -cos housing :would ' {be designated by "T" on the` Tentative Map. These would
be smaller lots and- smaller homes';, Toni Hargis Assistant City Ei g- ineer,
explaired that the• well. site should;,be shown oficthe Tentat ve::Map. The well
is in use and has: , been d'edic . but should , Ve. noted on the map, so a sub -
standard- lot -will. no't be, crdated'., The private `_ _cess .;and; public util t '
easements should • be indicated on: • the .Tentative. ,Map .as_ `to • what they. ar6. -Mr'.
Joslyn ..expla_ ned; •'that 'the price 'of the' low- ,cost' 'housing is? established by' 'the
co"s'_t °-.of 'the, lot, the cost of bu 'lding•and.the,bus ness market up.
the - -a, Hal- laexplained b> yehayPngUflexi :billtrestrictions of ' . the PU'D over -•
" y of:. lot size .and s'e`tbacks,
you more . designs. flexibility. a'nd` oppor- ''tunny. to! 'have open, space • such as
par k., .This. is a �PUD;- component. of the Planned. Community D stri'ct.. We are
4 comparing a.PUD or PCD` comb ination• with a,. convent bq&-T design R- 1- 6;500. ;.
Mr. Hargis stated we ;ar.e, concerned. about .ch'ildren:•,go ng. 'a�cro.ss the street into
the park or - the' - school . area: at Lot 82' where• �a car or landscaping could obscure
VA bil ty, In tl e, case of Lots _6'7, 7.1, .73 , T4. and 75;.. no' parking. i4fil:
permitted. on• the park side of � B'anff• Way,: nor' trees -.or-" shrubs planted t-h _ wil=l
-5 -=
Petaluma City Planning :Commiss•ion Minutes;� February 28:, 1.97:8
QANTA5-DEVELOPMENT obscur -e the .visibility. Acar parked. in•the driveway
COkP= PHASE II- , of -Lot 82 would ob;s .thee view - 'in - either- Airection.
&EZONING FROM'PCD Lost ,72, on :the °of.: Lassen arid,Banff� would. be
Tu PUC%TENTATIVE -. set,;back as- theme .are, some visibility res,tr ctions.
S.UBDIV:I'SION MAP
(Continued)_:'; -The -Public Hearing
;.was opened to consider the proposed -PUD (Plan:ned Unit: `DisItri-ct) rezoning.
Mr;. Joslyn _ asked. Jthat :co,nd tion. ;;��3 .o the; :quadraplot lotsf .r_-equitrin.g: that the 1, 1 distance no,t' be _..,less than 43 - feet betw.eeW the 'f wall,, the; garage .and 'the
far edge of;,the private street be: removed-. not.a - •requirement on, the
q adraplot lots in • Phase I. He stated they- are trying- to.. ,homeowners
to., their car-:s in the garages or at; least :on ,the' driveway.... This could. "'be .
_.
a ,pot full, of mischief;. Mr: Hall ;stated• these are typical ,standards used 'for
turning movements you need. at. least .22 feet to back up. "
Comm Shearer, was •concerned `that there was very. little variety' 'in the home" "
models,., With five single- family units and three townhouses .This would mean.
there would ;be 36 homes of each :model. Comm. Shearer stated she ,ould•,no4t..
like to see a, wall of houses as these same models are used in Phase .I, without
enoughvarie_tyin the models. Mr. Joslyn explained
the homes would not leave a• -sea of 'monotony. There would be a var if' the
same .floor plan was-put at •.a different elevation.
Comm. :Ho ciza;stated•.th,at,af:ter low cost housing has been presented, to the
evaluation board it should .not-disappear. . The intent is to rovide7 homes for
p,eople'•who ,can'•t ,afford the ';high rise in homes;. •At least z it •should .'be a
reasonable reach -for low income 'and enderly'people. Comm. Horci'za stated the
applicant had. been .awarded ;points for' multi= family units priced 9t range of
$22,900 to $,25,j,950 ,. ' Mr; ; Joslyn explained' .these prices were " quoted lover four
years °,ago. The townhouses would be from .$4:5,`00.0 - to $50,00:0 by' -the time they
..
are constructed,,. Comm., Horciza - stated, - the 'need' is ,still -here f6 I t se pdo,ple
even more, ., so toda :
y :I t, would be good if the coris�truction ndusitry . could come
up, W th,•some ideas . meet these, needs:. The Public 'Hearing was: closed.
Comm..Bead `moved • to recommend approval, , of • the ;reques.te'd PUD rezoning to the
City ,Council•,`wi�t . the •specific findings asi stated - in •B with the fo`l
lowing :.- change. The .mo,tion was 'seconded ; by' Comm: Shearer. The, `motion carried
unanimously:.
Condition #5 - changed;' On:quadraplot lots the distance•between • th°e `front '
Wall of the ,garage•,an'd-the •far edge of `the private
street, shall 'no't - be less °thaxr-forty (40). �fee`t to
provide for--,ad'equate vehicular: backup.'
Mr. Joslyn ppposed Condition #18 requiring the installation of masonry or
concrete f;ence:: „He stated: the •Ci_ ty Counci`1 71s leaning more tow r-d
fences:,' but `wew have an ;architectural redwood fence already started: on -McDowell
'and would .like to 'continue this,. wooden , fence. on through • McDowell On the side
near the hospital,. 'a masonry .fence perhaps would -be appropriate`.. - We are•• -us ng-
- 6 - _
J. •
r `
. Petaluma City.'Planning Commission Minutes, February 28, 19.78
QANTAS DEVELOPMENT
6' x 6' or 8' x 8`' posts. We are"bulding"a very
CORP PHASE 'II -:
heavy redw,00d,fenee as a lepart -of the improvement
REZONING FROM PC.D
plans, The same :fence --
.that w llnot be-built' in the
TO PU&J TENTATIVE
interior of the development: Comm. Wa ; te.questioted
SUBDI.MISuION'MAP
the drainage on the quadraplot lots. Mr. Hargis
(Conti nued)i
explained that these `lots are ,graded to drain out to
'
the-private The Building Department will not
permit lot to lot drainage.
Comm ,;IHead moved,
-rec o mmend approval of Tentative. Map; for. Phase II of
the Park Place Subdivision. to the -City Council with conditions of approval as
recommended by the Planning staff and City Engineer with - the following change.
The .motion was second e_d Comm. Shearer. The motion carried unanimously.
- Condijt on _#l8._ -- .deleted.
i
ADJOURNMENT':
There, `being -no further business the meeting adjourned
at' '10:10 p.m.
AL
Chairman
Attest:
• -7-